The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ignoring non‐English‐language studies may bias ecological meta‐analyses
Open accessAbstract
Meta‐analysis plays a crucial role in syntheses of quantitative evidence in ecology and biodiversity conservation. The reliability of estimates in meta‐analyses strongly depends on unbiased sampling of primary studies. Although earlier studies have explored potential biases in ecological meta‐analyses, biases in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics published in different languages have never been tested in environmental sciences. We address this knowledge gap by systematically searching published meta‐analyses and comparing effect‐size estimates between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in existing meta‐analyses. Of the 40 published ecological meta‐analysis articles authored by those affiliated to Japanese institutions, we find that three meta‐analysis articles searched for studies in the two languages and involved sufficient numbers of English‐ and Japanese‐language studies, resulting in four eligible meta‐analyses (i.e., four meta‐analyses conducted in the three meta‐analysis articles). In two of the four, effect sizes differ significantly between the English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in the meta‐analyses, causing considerable changes in overall mean effect sizes and even their direction when Japanese‐language studies are excluded. The observed differences in effect sizes are likely attributable to systematic differences in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics, particularly taxa and ecosystems, between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies. Despite being based on a small sample size, our findings suggest that ignoring non‐English‐language studies may bias outcomes of ecological meta‐analyses, due to systematic differences in study characteristics and effect‐size estimates between English‐ and non‐English languages. We provide a list of actions that meta‐analysts could take in the future to reduce the risk of language bias.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253 · Cited by 4,220 · cited 1×
“Global environmental change threatens ecosystems and biodiversity around the world (Ceballos et al., 2015; Díaz et al., 2019; WWF, 2018).”
BackgroundSelective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy
Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa065779 · Cited by 2,435
A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology
Harrison, X. A., Donaldson, L., Correa-Cano, M. E., Evans, J., Fisher, D. N., Goodwin, C. E. D., Robinson, B. S., Hodgson, D. J., & Inger, R. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.4794 · Cited by 2,094
Ruxton, G. D. (2006) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/ark016 · Cited by 1,988
Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25753 · Cited by 1,709 · cited 2×
“The number of effectsize estimates in each language is also shown in each bar used to inform decision-making in conservation policy and practice across a range of contexts (Gurevitch et al., 2018).”
BackgroundHandbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution
(2013) · doi:10.1515/9781400846184 · Cited by 1,183
Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P., & Pullin, A. S. (2018) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7 · Cited by 946
Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study
Jüni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.115 · Cited by 892
Bongaarts, J. (2019) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.1111/padr.12283 · Cited by 859
McAuley, L., Pham, B., Tugwell, P., & Moher, D. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02786-0 · Cited by 812
Davies, G. M., & Gray, A. (2015) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.1782 · Cited by 333
Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources
Livoreil, B., Glanville, J., Haddaway, N. R., Bayliss, H., Bethel, A., de Lachapelle, F. F., Robalino, S., Savilaakso, S., Zhou, W., Petrokofsky, G., et al. (2017) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-017-0099-6 · Cited by 156 · cited 1×
“However, the prevalence and importance of language bias in ecological meta-analyses have never been assessed to date (Livoreil et al., 2017).”
BackgroundUse of meta-analysis in forest biodiversity research: key challenges and considerations
Spake, R., & Doncaster, C. P. (2017) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.05.059 · Cited by 60 · cited 2×
“This is a potential threat to ecological meta-analyses, which typically synthesize heterogeneous studies on multiple species, conducted at multiple study scales (temporal, spatial) and with different methods (e.g., observational, experimental) (Spake & Doncaster, 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationInformation retrieval for ecological syntheses
Bayliss, H. R., & Beyer, F. R. (2015) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1120 · Cited by 45
Pullin, A. S. (2012) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/2047-2382-1-2 · Cited by 36
Cited by
Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology
Trisos, C. H., Auerbach, J., & Katti, M. (2021) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01460-w · Cited by 441
Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people
Isbell, F., Balvanera, P., Mori, A. S., He, J., Bullock, J. M., Regmi, G. R., Seabloom, E. W., Ferrier, S., Sala, O. E., Guerrero‐Ramírez, N. R., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.2536 · Cited by 291
Rubenstein, M. A., Weiskopf, S. R., Bertrand, R., Carter, S. L., Comte, L., Eaton, M. J., Johnson, C. G., Lenoir, J., Lynch, A. J., Miller, B. W., et al. (2023) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-023-00296-0 · Cited by 268
Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity
Raja, N. B., Dunne, E. M., Matiwane, A., Khan, T. M., Nätscher, P. S., Ghilardi, A. M., & Chattopadhyay, D. (2021) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01608-8 · Cited by 259
A global agenda for advancing freshwater biodiversity research
Maasri, A., Jähnig, S. C., Adamescu, M. C., Adrian, R., Baigun, C., Baird, D. J., Batista‐Morales, A., Bonada, N., Brown, L. E., Cai, Q., et al. (2022) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.13931 · Cited by 227
Metadata
- Authors
- Konno, K., Akasaka, M., Koshida, C., Katayama, N., Osada, N., Spake, R., & Amano, T.
- Venue
- Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-05-29
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 6373-6384
- ISSN
- 2045-7758 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3031189206
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 19.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
